Should adblocking be against the law?

[Erik Mesoy]

I vote no, the law would be far too intrusive, though I'd like to note a few points...

I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it is my business. If I don't want to waste it on ads, then no one should force me to.

The website owner pays for his bandwidth. What he offers on it is his business. If he wants to offer an all-or-nothing deal, I could argue that you shouldn't be able to force him to only offer the bits you like.

Adblock should be improved so that aimee's posts cannot be seen.

CFC has an ignore function. If that's not enough, there's a script for Firefox that lets you ignore posters more thoroughly.

 

[Gustave5436]

Then it would be wise of you to say what you mean from now on, rather than making broad statements that can easily be taken either out of context or explained to be ridiculous.

In a thread on web-based ads, I think it's a bit out of context and ridiculous to talk about store-front signs.

 

[Brighteye]

I was about to make a similar point with video taping your favorite TV show and then fast-forwarding through the commercials.

Yes, that would be a genius move. Now tell me how you'd find where the grocery store is, because signage is advertising.

I think it's perfectly possible to split what you call advertising into defined subdivisions, of which many would ideally be banned.

Sometimes, it's not even about brand, but just about getting information across, such as government campaigns to stop smoking etc (I call them "nagverts", cos they keep on nagging you to do something).

Taking up space is fine enough.
On subject:
Pop-ups waste time, and flashing, moving ads waste most of the bandwidth, making it load slowly and wasting my time.
The advertisers are not paying for my time. They're paying someone else for space on his website. If I have devices that save my time, that's none of their business.

 

[bhsup]

Yes, and it should also be illegal to change the TV channel during commercials.

I was about to make a similar point with video taping your favorite TV show and then fast-forwarding through the commercials.

Aimee could be prophetic with this thread. The idea isn't TOTALLY alien to the United States. One TV product was sued into bankrupcy over commercial skipping...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayTV#Legal_Battle

On October 31, 2001, numerous TV companies, including the three major networks, filed a lawsuit against Sonicblue, which at the time marketed the ReplayTV device. They alleged that the ReplayTV 4000 series, was part of an “unlawful scheme” that “attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services” according to the lawsuit.
The TV industry attacked ReplayTV for two reasons:

1. The machines enabled people to record television programs and then watch them without commercials via the "AutoSkip" feature, thereby tempting advertisers to pull the plug on what the lawsuit calls "the lifeblood of most television channels": advertising.
2. The machines allowed users to share programs they've recorded with others via the "Send Show" feature, which transmits digital copies of shows over the Internet to other ReplayTV owners, thereby enabling people who have not paid for premium channels to watch premium content for free.

Both the “AutoSkip” and the “Send Show” features were alleged to violate U.S. copyright and other federal and state laws, according to the TV industry plaintiffs, who wanted sales of the ReplayTV 4000 devices--slated for shipment on Nov. 15, 2001--stopped.[4]
The lawsuit against Sonicblue was stayed when the company filed for bankruptcy protection in March of 2003. In August of 2003, the ReplayTV 5500 series went on sale without the “Autoskip” and “Send Show” features. Although executives at D&M said the elimination of the two crucial features was voluntary, the entertainment industry had demanded in its lawsuit that those features be removed.